[speechlesstx]

... I bet when those tax deductions for the cost of the health care you do like kick in, many will change their tunes. Maybe you can afford BETTER coverage rather than the cheap bare minimum that leaves you broke after you have to actually use it.

The fix, rather than go back to faster rising cost and being dropped when you are sick, is the Medicare for all option. That's the only thing I have against the ACA, it still leaves insurance companies in the middle of our health care needs. And that's expensive whether you like your insurance companies or not because the giants have carved up the country and control prices for their own bottom line.

Most people are finding out their insurance is junk any way, so like is the wrong word. Scammed would fit better. So the fact your costs are going up has nothing to do with the ACA in the first place. They have been going up for decades any way.

I doubt we go back to the way it was before ACA. Even repub governors who hollered before are embracing Medicaid expansion, and that's a part of the ACA too.

That if you like it thing has already been proven wrong, Tal so don't insult us with line any more. But I see you've adopted Pelosi's Orwellian meme.

Well, some people don’t have health insurance, and certainly will have their premiums go up, because they don’t have health insurance now so they don’t have any premiums now. But for anyone that that is a challenge there are subsidies in the exchanges, and it’s also about what you get for the money. In other words, people will getting no lifetime or annual limits on their coverage, no discrimination because of preexisting medical condition. It has a whole array of quality that is in the legislation. But, if you don’t have health insurance and you don’t qualify for a subsidy and you’re mandated to have health insurance, yes, you will have an increase. We’re very sensitive to what it means for young people, especially young singles, and there are policies that people can get. I don’t remember saying that everybody in the country would have a lower premium, because everybody in the country doesn’t have health insurance, so how could it be lower. But the fact is, the value of what you get for the cost that you pay is a reduction is a reduction in cost to you. And if you don’t have insurance, you’re going to pay something that you didn’t pay before, but if you can’t afford it, you can have a subsidy… For everybody, it is going to be, again, a liberation, a freedom…

[talaniman]

You like your insurance so why can't YOU keep it?

[speechlesstx]

You like your insurance so why can't YOU keep it?

Obviously you're a true believer in spite of overwhelming evidence, but shame on you for trying to scam others into believing it.

[talaniman]

You didn't answer the question instead you admonish me. That's not how we debate and exchange ideas!

Now why don't you answer a simple question?

[smearcase]

Example: Joe works for XYZ builders. XYZ has 47 employees and provides group coverage which Joe likes.
New healthcare law takes effect. XYZ realizes that their competitors are not required to provide coverage so they decide to follow suit.
Or if more than 50 employees, XYZ analyzes and discovers that it is more cost effective to pay the
$ 3,000 (approx.) per employee fee and let its employees get insurance through exchanges.
Either way, Joe liked his insurance but he can't keep it.

[Wondergirl]

Either way, Joe liked his insurance but he can't keep it.

Why can't Joe buy insurance from that same company on his own?

My son buys his own health insurance from a nationally-recognized company. His premiums have gone up from time to time over the years, but it is still very affordable.

[talaniman]

Example: Joe works for XYZ builders. XYZ has 47 employees and provides group coverage which Joe likes.
New healthcare law takes effect. XYZ realizes that their competitors are not required to provide coverage so they decide to follow suit.
Or if more than 50 employees, XYZ analyzes and discovers that it is more cost effective to pay the
$ 3,000 (approx.) per employee fee and let its employees get insurance through exchanges.
Either way, Joe liked his insurance but he can't keep it.

That's a business decision by employers who haven't raised your paycheck over the years either, while their costs have gone up too for your health care before the ACA, and its real effects have even started for those that have. So if they no longer offer benefits to employees will YOU be compensated for the loss of those benefits?

Of course you won't. They know that too as they cut hours and benefits. That's why I asked do you really like your health care benefits?

Or do you like just having it? Is the benefits a fit for your own situation? Has Joe ever used it and what are his options. Even if you like what you have, you may be swayed by a better option. Insurance companies know that too!

If Joe has never used his insurance, how does he know if he likes it, or not?

[excon]

Hello again,

Regrettably, I don't believe ANYTHING from the people who brought us death panels. Rational discussion with those folks has been proven impossible.

If the law needs to be tweaked, then it'll be tweaked. I'm sure the Democrats will have to do that on their own too. But, it's the LAW OF THE LAND, and won't be repealed no matter HOW many times Republicans try.

excon

[smearcase]

In my case, I could do so (keep the insurance COMPANY I have) for at least a 50% increase in premium, probably a lot more to get coverage anywhere near the benefits of the present group plan. The article that announced Carefirst's estimate that individual policies would increase 50%, was concerning private customers. Their private coverage could be 100% more than my group coverage now, so maybe it would cost me 3 times the premium I pay now.
Also, Joe may have family coverage now and according to articles linked by others during the discussion on this question previously, his company may only have to provide coverage for their employee, not his dependents. Does that constitute he or his family keeping the coverage they liked?
But that wouldn't be keeping the insurance I had, it would be keeping the insurance company I had.
You mean that obama was saying - you can keep the insurance company you had but it might cost you and arm and a leg to do so?
So, you think that what he meant to say was: if you like the insurance that you have now, you can keep it but it might bankrupt you and maybe your wife and kids will have no coverage.
Obama is the same as everyone else, they have to pass the bill, see how it is interpreted, see what regulations are implemented, see what loopholes were left in the bill, and see how different insurance companies react to it, etc---to find out what is in it. But when folks heard him say -if you like your insurance you can keep it--they thought that was what he meant. I do nothing, I keep what I have.

[tomder55]

Regrettably, I don't believe ANYTHING from the people who brought us death panels. Rational discussion with those folks has been proven impossible.

Let me introduce you to the head of the death panel
Sebelius Won't Help Dying Girl: 'Someone Lives And Someone Dies' - YouTube

Republican judge saves Sarah Murnaghan from death panel bureaucrats | Washington Times Communities

I believe this is a case of a bureaucrat getting between the patient and the doctor... something the Emperor said would not happen under Obamacare.

[talaniman]

In my case, I could do so (keep the insurance COMPANY I have) for at least a 50% increase in premium, probably a lot more to get coverage anywhere near the benefits of the present group plan. The article that announced Carefirst's estimate that individual policies would increase 50%, was concerning private customers. Their private coverage could be 100% more than my group coverage now, so maybe it would cost me 3 times the premium I pay now.
Also, Joe may have family coverage now and according to articles linked by others during the discussion on this question previously, his company may only have to provide coverage for their employee, not his dependents. Does that constitute he or his family keeping the coverage they liked?
But that wouldn't be keeping the insurance I had, it would be keeping the insurance company I had.
You mean that obama was saying - you can keep the insurance company you had but it might cost you and arm and a leg to do so?
So, you think that what he meant to say was: if you like the insurance that you have now, you can keep it but it might bankrupt you and maybe your wife and kids will have no coverage.
Obama is the same as everyone else, they have to pass the bill, see how it is interpreted, see what regulations are implemented, see what loopholes were left in the bill, and see how different insurance companies react to it, etc---to find out what is in it. But when folks heard him say -if you like your insurance you can keep it--they thought that was what he meant. I do nothing, I keep what I have.

I think we each have a responsibility to look at what we have objectively, and weigh our options before we just say we like what we have. Doesn't matter what you think he said or meant, just what it meant to you.

Hope, Joe doesn't find out like many that he didn't have what he thought he had. "Trust but verify".

[speechlesstx]

You didn't answer the question instead you admonish me. That's not how we debate and exchange ideas!

Now why don't you answer a simple question?

As if whining about our hollering every post is debate?

[speechlesstx]

I think we each have a responsibility to look at what we have objectively, and weigh our options before we just say we like what we have. Doesn't matter what you think he said or meant, just what it meant to you.

Hope, Joe doesn't find out like many that he didn't have what he thought he had. "Trust but verify".

There is no reason to trust this government.

[talaniman]

Not surprising from a conservative in a political debate. Nor should my more progressive ideas surprise you. :)

[speechlesstx]

Not surprising from a conservative in a political debate. Nor should my more progressive ideas surprise you. :)

So progressive means passing laws without knowing what's in it, hoping for the best and defending the worst? I can respect your ideas but not your denial of the disaster unfolding.

[talaniman]

What disasters?

[speechlesstx]

Have you not been reading the thread? It's obvious.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

Have you not been reading the thread? It's obvious.

Obvious? To who? All I hear is you wingers mis-characterizing the law like you have been from the get go. Ain't nothing new here... Yawnnn.

Excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:
Obvious?? To who? All I hear is you wingers mis-characterizing the law like you have been from the get go. Ain't nothing new here... Yawnnn.

excon

Just reporting the news, premiums skyrocketing, policies will be canceled, it's more unpopular than ever... does that sand taste good?

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

Like your knee jerks about the IRS, your knee jerks when you read right wing media about Obamacare.

I, on the other hand, and willing to let things play out. Obamacare hasn't been implemented yet.. AFTER it is, if it's the disaster you say, we'll ALL know it.

excon